My corporation is my passenger.

It;s still very early, but this guy is my favorite for the Beautiful Smartass with big-ol-hairy-ones of the year award .

It sounds like activism, to me. He seems to be trying to make a point about corporate legal personhood, taking it to its ridiculous legal extreme. He even says he hopes the case will go well beyond traffic court to spur discussion about corporate personhood.

I dunno that a traffic ticket will set the stage for revising the laws on corporate personhood, but I wish him luck. :slight_smile:

Not argued at all. The guy is an idiot wrestling the tide. But it’s like the time Seinfeld went and heckled the lady at her office job. Being the guy who actually does it is worth some recognition.

What amazes me is that this guy had to try for ten years to get a ticket for driving in the carpool lane. I mean, crikey, even with a $481 ticket, that’s less than fifty bucks a year for HOV privileges! :smiley:

Yes it does seem that way, and to some extent I agree with it and wish him well.


Yep. I know people who refuse to buy subway tickets out of principle. They say that when you figure in how infrequently they get caught, turnstile-hopping is still cheaper than buying tickets.

what principle?


I’m backing this guy all the way. Well as long as it takes no effort on my part anyway. But it’s still a great move. Based on the detailed legal analysis in the article that consists of a few unverified statements, he has an open and shut case.

I know right!, I am totally checking out my states motor vehicle code today!

HOV here I come!

PS: One thing he got right: “Person” includes a natural person, firm, co-partnership, association, limited liability company, or corporation.

His otherwise brilliant argument fails on this point: the corporation’s papers are not the corporation. By the same token, I can’t drive in the HOV-lane with my son’s birth certificate; I need him sitting there.

What if you’re a Freeman on the land? :smiley:

I don’t know about california, but most HOV stautes specify the qualifying person must be a licensed driver; children and unlicense people don’t count, so neither would a corporation.

Ohh, so now we’re going start discriminating against corporate persons by denying them driver’s licenses just because they have the physical disability of being non-corporeal?

Corporations have the right to take the driving test and eye test, just like everybody else.

Yes, that’s where the argument fails. Corporations are abstractions, and cannot be physically present anywhere. So, a law that said hat no more than 10 persons could travel in an elevator would not be breached by one natural person carrying the corporate papers of 12 corporations in a briefcase.

A corporation is not even the totality of its shareholders or members. Suppose you had two natural persons, who had set up 12 corporations in which they were the only shareholders. If they got into an elevator, or into a car, there would only be 2 persons present, not 14.

A more extreme example: if Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth were driving by herself in that carpool lane, she could not argue that beside herself as a natural person there were numerous corporations sole, e.g., the Crown in right of the United Kingdom, the Crown in right of Canada, the Crown in right of New South Wales, etc. Those corporations cannot be physically present anywhere.

You’ve hit it right on the nose. Using that logic, is there anything he could have had in the passenger seat that might have counted as being the corporation itself?

I’ve never heard of that, and don’t know how it could be enforced in terms of unlicensed drivers.

I believe there was one case, in CA IIRC, where someone driving a hearse claimed to have more than one person in the car. He didn’t win, but I assume dead people aren’t consider persons under the law.

It appears children, (post partum) are qualifying passengers in California:

“The defense calls Willard Mitt Romney as an expert witness…”